The size comparisons are blatant in it! Inherent comedy, you are divine.
But, I think we need to get serious for second here, people. This could lead to a monumental decision that could affect us all. I mean, who would think that such small results could lead to a massive ruling?
Well, other than men from Quebec, that is.
No, really-how do they get ruled in this?
The legality of a state regulating the sale and rental of violent video games to minors will be decided finally by the U.S. Supreme Court, the justices decided today.
CHUNG-CHUNG
Whatever the outcome, the decision of the justices could have a much wider impact on how freedom of speech is treated in the United States. SCHWARZENEGGER, GOV. OF CA V. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS, ET AL. was one of two new cases the court granted Monday for a decision next term, which kicks off on October 4. While cases like this have been repeatedly won by the video game industry in different states, the U.S. Supreme Court decision will have national implications. A decision to not hear the case would have affirmed California’s previous judicial defeats and serve as another in a long line of gaming industry victories against state authorities trying to legislate against violent games.
CHUNG-CHUNG
Back to the part about minors: do they define minors by United States age-of-majority tradition (at 18) or by the ESRB’s age for M-rated purchases (at 17)? No one’s saying, and when you think about it, that might be one of the biggest issues at hand.
Just when we thought the looming threat of NASCAR had been contained to the redneckier parts of America, it appears that the sport managed to slip into Washington, D.C.–more specifically, into the U.S. Supreme Court.
In a 5-4 decision divided on the usual party lines, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can “spend as much as they [want] to sway voters in federal elections.”
Now, a lot of people are upset about this … although they’re mostly people who don’t own corporations, so what do they know, right? They certainly aren’t looking on the bright side.
For instance: voters already complain that they can’t tell the difference between presidential candidates anymore, saying that they’re forced to select “the lesser of two evils.” Well, what if Pepsi endorsed one of them? BOOM! 50 percent of the population just voted for, “I’ll have a water, then.”
Best of all, candidates could actually coordinate their campaign slogans with their contributors. Jonathan Edwards could “clean up” his image with an endorsement from Tide. Or, he could show he’s learned his lesson about fathering inconvenient children with a giant Trojan backdrop behind his podium.
